OCinBuffalo

Oh Please: You've NEVER, EVER! had any real cred on this board. See? This is what happens when I leave unmitigated morons(remember that?) unattended. They get uppity. Anyhow I have another thread I have to start, and, I have a meeting with Ze Germans in 30...cause if your not 10 mins early, you are late. I will come back around to you...but...honestly...it's not 2005-->it's not like I'm still on mute on a pointless conference call, thus I could spend the time I had back then on your dopey ass. Contribute Substantively or GTFO of my thread. From here on out I'm gonna run this like one of my football threads.

I get the feeling you're trying to tell me, is there something that I should know? What excuse are you trying to sell me? No Reply At All!

Well, at least you know you are talking to the real OC. I am always ready to pounce, and you should know that...having been pounced upon so many time. I said off the top of my head. And, do you really think it's a big secret that you parrot DC_Tom on the board. Christ, I am up to my ass in Kafka topics right now, but, and you know me, I will try to put in an effort to fire up the Postgres Warehouse(the only reason I wrote in that was cause it was new at the time), and see what fun I can have with you. Don't expect like 20 minutes from now. Give me a few hours at least. I built a brand new not-ESB for what we do, and I don't even know how it works some days, and I have people bugging me. You are and always have been like a gnat. Or better, a remora that hangs around Tom. I'm only going to give you the effort you deserve. So...I refute you every step...and this is your reply? Let me introduce you to what many here have experienced: No Reply At ALL!

Actually? I have a big regret in staying faithful to my American girlfriend, when I was working for Price Waterhouse, at Consumer's Gas. There was this Canadian girl that was...a camera operator for big movies(at the time she had worked on "Far and Away") I met in Toronto. Every 6 months I ask myself why the F I didn't give her a better look. Honor is the answer. It's the same reason that I'd never have found myself in your mom's basement. (But, I maintain that your sister's is a possibility).

3 posts saying the same thing? O-tay....let's start with no-look, off the top of my head: how is your position on The Surge in Iraq doing these days? You parroted DC_Tom back then(which, for anyone who pays attention is what this clown does 90% of the time)...and I told both of you that we needed to stay in Iraq, regardless of the failures of the original mission scope....because leaving would make things much worse. Leaving, per Obama, created ISIS, clown. And, we left billions of our hardware available for capture...which then required even more expenditure of our own weapons...to destroy our own weapons. Nice work, schitheel. I thought that would've have broken you from eternal reliance on Tom's play-calling your posts....but....10 years later...here we are. Hah. Hell, for all I know, I've been in your mom's basement, or at least your aunt's. Sister's? Buddy, I started on this board with a start-up. It's now a multi-national, and I own 100% of it. Generation X. The people who suffered the most from the Baby Boomer Silicon Valley Bust...but also...the same people who wrote all the code/managed the projects. We rose again. Now we are in charge. Um, look at tech stocks now. Look at them ever since the Baby Boomers were sent out to pasture. And, look at what happens to any Valley company who defers to Millenial marketing/HR D-baggery. For me? "There's nothing left to do but, smile, smile, smile!".

Do you really want to do this? I remind you: I have an entire warehouse....newly termed "datalake" of posts...from everybody. All it requires is 2 minutes of me writing the query...and yeah...we'll go from stinging...to flaying. Think it through. EDIT: And speaking of faggotry...."DataLake" projects have failed 98% of the time...so...no...I'll just stick with my old-school star schema.

I don't know you...but...let's just say: at one point there was a "tournament" of posters. It was suggested that we "just get it over with and let DC-Tom and OCinBuffalo fight it out". But, I went along with the tournament. Unfortunately, and per the poster who is not Crayonz faggotry rules, they gave me Chef as an opponent to discuss Obamacare IT. I am a, now, world-level player in IT...so there's no way I could "win"...because no matter what...Chef making even 1 coherent point means the underdog wins. I responded to this faggotry...by writing every single post in iambic pentamter couplets. Yeah: I did IT...in poetry. Why? Because every clown here is beneath me intellectually, and they know it.

No...it shows that your intersectionality faggotry will inevitably be defeated...by it's own contradictions...and... ...by those who have bravery(are afraid, but stand to anyway) over those who are cowards(are afraid, and run). Doubt me? Ask yourself: How did Mitt Romney's opening statement as a US Senator play out? Then, ask yourself: how is his vote against the immigration emergency going to play out? You people wonder why you've historically lost for 50 years? I just gave you the lesson: Romney/McCain/Obama cowardice VS Trump(or JFK, or Reagan) Courage. Look: given the last 6 months? I don't expect a clown like you to even approach cognition of what is happening. You are losing the culture/media war on all fronts. Specifically because story after story highlights your cowardice(DNC refusing to let FOX host a Dem primary debate, starting a whole new set of investigations...now that you have the House...but Mueller is essentially done, infanticide, open borders, Medicare for All...but no plan to pay for it). That's what this is going to come down to: Trump's courage in the face of withering adversity VS your 2 years of craven "bombshells to nowhere". For 14 years I've been batting .950 on this site. It's gotten me partisan warning points, chased legions of leftist "certitude" from this board, but most importantly: it has allowed me to whip your ass, post by post, thread by thread. It used to be fun. Now? It's a duty. Like anybody gives a **** what an Italian-Canadian has to say...about anything. You've got your own problems with Trudeau. Your entire government is a laughing stock of "virtue" and "at least we're better than the Americans"! And the best part is: the entire board gets to read me laughing at your silly ineptitude...and you don't. EDIT: Funny that you'd go out of your way to comment in a thread that you're supposed to be ignoring. Hmmm....awfully needy.

...which presents a MASSIVE ideological problem for intersectionality(which, hilariously, causes my spell checker to error, no matter how many different spellings I try. Perhaps because "intersectionality" is not an English word?) Honest to Moses: Jewish women, who, through personal experience are FAR MORE subject to a patriarchy...are ignoring the tropes and just saying "screw the butt-wiping at the nursing home, just hand me the rifle". Link: miscreants Observe: this reversal in logic approaches the "If Bush is a giant idiot, how is he such a skillful liar that he got Clinton and Kerry to vote for the Iraq War? You can't be both an idiot and an adept con-man....at the same time". I've been away, but why not start a new thread with MY ORIGINAL(watch and learn DC-TOM) premise that has been stinging "progressive" PPPer asses for over a decade now? Hell, I've run this one in the bar for a damn decade. I either get tepid agreement that, yes asserting both is incoherence...or I get challenged to a fight...by (non-violent, anti-fascist thugs)...ahem...liberals. Last time I beat 2 of them down so fast I had to let the bar owner that a fight happened The liberal(Jihadi) belief is that their arguments will protect them...after they start violence. The all-female severs howled laughing at the "fight". Why? Because I have the ability to turn people into puppets, both on a message board, AND, in the real world. And yet these people make the claim that my words == violence? No. My words, once they recognize them as irrefutable, incite leftists to violence...because: leftists. I expect anthropologists and clinical psychologists to be dining out on the aberrant behavior of the Democratic party of 2019...for decades. Yet, given all this...we have Orthodox Jewish...WOMEN...more ready to fill combat roles than ever...as long as they get to wear a skirt(and as some of us are aware...continue to be completely unresponsive on ALL Saturdays and far too many random holidays). Look, this **** will NEVER play in the USA, because we aren't outnumbered 8-1 by titular enemies on all sides. We don't need to make cultural concessions. But, then again, never say never. If Orthodox women see picking up a rifle and standing a post...as a viable life choice? Where does that leave the manhood of clowns like...basically every Democrat you know...or the value of their opinion/based on non-existent principles/values-->willingness to defend NOTHING...if it means actually standing to? Laugh now...but as a life-long analytics guy? Orthodox Jewish Women...albeit with skirts on...want to serve in at least 2nd echelon units. This is a huge pattern breaker...that will cause no end of fits for the Democrats trying to hold a coalition together...which no longer has any commonality... on anything.

Please. I have owned Tom, as a wholly owned subsidiary, in so many threads, and you know know this. The simple fact is the kid needs to wait until the thought leaders speak, and then find fault. Doubt me? I came here to start 2 new threads...and we shall see exactly what he contributes: substantively.

No, God help you. I only come here nowadays when I see you people have strayed. 3rdnlng: Do you want to be my new object lesson for the next 3 weeks? Do you remember the sting on your ass the last time? Granted it's been a while, but, I still have full possession of all my instruments of poster destruction. Do you really want to play Simon for 3 weeks?

Wow. And I see this comment just went by...like water off a duck's ass. I have been irresponsible when it comes to this board. Now, granted I have my reasons, but, letting DC_Tom say silly **** like this...and where is the response demanding evidence? Look: this entire thing bored me after we made the Obama leftists run from this board in 2009, like scalded dogs. Context: for 5 years they were nothing but certitude. 10 years have got behind you, no one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun. Which, is exactly why Trump is POTUS, the Dems have lost ALL REAL power after 2006...exactly as I told you clowns would happen. The next O/U is 2020: I'm setting it at 40 states for Trump.

Actually? If you can read the above...you know basic ASCII. If you don't, then yeah, you get to make wild statements about....whatever. Boyst thinks that knowing ASCII makes him look like an erudite cow farmer(if that's even the right moniker). Boyst's fascination with ASCII....is as long as the Bills haven't had a legit #1 QB, WR, or 3 starting CB. This is not Comp SCI 101, thus I have no obligation here. If you want to know why and how, you can pay. Otherwise, the knowledge is available, for free, which...10 years later...is a clearly fulfilled tenet of Anon.

Buddy, when you've been here as long as I have? DC_Tom's entire lame schtick is obvious. So, what are you? Yet another poster who got schooled one time by DC-Tom, and now live in perpetual fear? Let's cut the crap: the kid is a mental patient, whose intelligence far outweighs his wisdom(and willingness to focus on small error rather than larger concepts). Hey, it's a curse both of us share. But at least I try to do something about it. You will find Tom, despite the meds, prefers to continue his delusions of grandeur....then projects them onto me. Hell, do the work, and you can find it all in the very same link you posted.

At least I start them. All you do is wait in the wings and comment on everybody else's thread. In fact, offhand I cannot remember a single thread you've ever started. Much easier to wait until somebody else puts down their thoughts, in full, on a topic and then find a small error...than do any real work yourself. Please. This entire board knows the score. They may be afraid of you, they may feel inferior to you. I am not, and I do not. I've seen you screw up lots of times. The difference is: I don't feel the need to post about every single instance. You do. EDIT: Also, I can't help but notice that you have nothing substantive to contribute to this thread. Once again, it's all about the process, and never the content with you.

...they have suddenly taken up the George Costanza "do the opposite" mantra. Examples: 1) How can any Democrat complain about leaving Syria? Did you forget your own behavior, from 2003-8 regarding the Iraq war? "No Blood For Oil!" We haven't forgotten. On this very board it was proclaimed daily how we shouldn't be involved in Middle Eastern fiascoes. Syria, clowns, is definitionally a ME fiasco. Either you weren't serious then or you aren't serious now. Or more likely, you aren't serious about the topic at all, and automatically come down on the opposite side of whatever the Rs are saying. Which == you stand for nothing. 2) This is a great one: the WTO. Pardon us, but we seem to recall you clowns rioting in Seattle, and many other places, against the WTO. Now, when Trump threatens them with reprisals if they try to take advantage of our workers...you're their staunch supporters? The WTO. Rocks, bottles, lighting things on fire. Remember? We do. We saw you. We heard what elected Democrats said(or more correctly, what their union paymasters told them to say.) The WTO is an organization that for YEARS you said was directly responsible for keeping whole countries in poverty, AND, depressing American worker's wages. Now, because Trump actually does what you said needed to be done? Well, what, are you gonna replace your Che Guevera T-Shirts with WTO blazers? So again I ask: what do you stand for? I bet you have no defensible argument either way, which is: nothing. 3) Apparently you think we forgot "General Betray Us". So let's get this straight: if you like what a general officer has to say, then generals are there to make sure a POTUS doesn't start wars you don't like, subsume a R president's Constitutional authority, and be the source of absolute truth on all things military(which is how Mad Dog is now being portrayed). But, if you don't like what he says, then generals are merely empty-headed tools of the military industrial complex, stooges of the R president, probable war criminals, and perhaps even treasonous. And, if they dare to contradict the all-knowing Obama, then they have committed prima facie treason, should be fired immediately, and investigated via star-chamber. Yeah, nothing like making it up as you go along, which again, means you stand for nothing. 4) I spent my entire childhood and early teens listening to Democrats embarrass themselves by claiming that Reagan's rhetoric alone would likely start WW3. That's HOF wrong. MTV had videos they played every hour with puppets of Reagan the fool. Democrats constantly told us that diplomacy was the answer to all, and that we'd be much better off getting along with Russia than confronting her. When Mitt Romney said that Russia was the biggest threat to us in his debate with Obama, Obama said "the 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back". And, when Russia attacked Crimea, Obama did what? Sanctions. Diplomacy. Now, apparently we can throw ALL of that out the window, because the minute Trump tries diplomacy with Russia, hell, he might as well be Nevile Chamaberlain? Trump colluded with the Russians, and yet, as a massive idiot, with no foreign policy experience, or real connections.... ...is incapable of doing any such thing, at the same time. WTF? That's just 4 examples. There are 8 more I can think of as I write this. Who are you people, and what have you done with the Democrats? I have never seen so much blatant contradiction, by people who are on record saying the exact opposite of what they are now. And you think: we forgot. No. I know my history, and those don't are doomed to remain as children for life. I know what you've said, I read it, right here on this board. Tell me: what do Democrats believe? What is their actual position on ANYTHING? What policies and programs do they support, right now, today? Because after last week: I honestly have no idea.

I am glad we got top 10...because that adds value to the pick in terms of 5th year clause(I think), and, it's not so high as to make a trade all or nothing. Thus, right now, I support trading down. This team is not 2 guys away, it's about 8 guys away. Upside: none of those 8 guys play the standard top 5 draft pick positions. Hopefully FA, with our huge cap space and more than a few good players on the market, solves some of this. Perhaps it solves all of it, and allows us to stay put? That's fine too. But, I'd rather get an extra 2nd, this year, if we can, and use it on the BPA. Also, it's pretty clear that we need WR, DB, and OL(and perhaps a DL). I'd rather not put all our eggs in one basket(Watkins). I'd much rather we get lots of guys all over the roster, and spread the risk. College WRs today are less prepared for the NFL than they have been since the 1950-60s. They aren't taught nearly well enough to read defenses(in many cases they aren't even allowed), to run the entire rout tree, to break press coverage, to block properly(= not give away the play by how they line up, never mind block). Spread offenses, read/option, looking to the sidelines for reads, running 3 routs only, all against zone defenses 85% of plays, is why we find ourselves here. This is why I rarely watch college football. If I wanted to watch JV football, or play Madden, I would. Any objective truths that might be found in college are routinely overwhelmed by subjective conjecture. One can easily spend 4 hours listening to a debate about conferences/teams/players, and nothing will be proven, now or ever == waste of time. In the NFL the opposite is true. Teams are judged by math. Playoffs are earned by math. We can argue the why, but the how is never in question. The added benefit is that I'm 100% objective at draft time. Got a dispute between which player to take? I'm your poster. Thus, show me the tape/stats/whatever. Best argument wins.

No, I am just OCinBuffalo. Nobody created analytics. That's a marketing term anyway. The human race created it. We all have had a hand in it, like it or not. Every time somebody throws together numbers/data, and tries to see if there's a relationship, they're creating analytics. There's not much for me, or anyone else, to be bitter about. How about this: think of it in Moneyball terms(and yeah the movie is...a movie). Should you cut a better cover CB, in favor of a better ST CB, even if neither is a "starter", and both will probably spend 80% of their snaps this season on ST? No. Not ever, ever, ever in Moneyball terms. That's what I am saying. Again, if we are talking about the last 15 years: my evidence is overwhelming. Nate Clements et al. You may be right, but, Nate Clements was a star on a rookie contract once too. How? Simple: you're talking about 3 guys. As I said in the OP, we can now get, grudgingly, people to finally admit there are 3 "starting" CBs on a team. Actually, there are 4. So, for a start, for some progress towards reality and away from belligerence, I'd be happy if we can just get there. Can we all get to admitting there are 4? EDIT: The real problem is, and while is has the appearance of semantics, this is not the case, the word "starting". Teams use packages. All packages are not equal. We use 3 LBs + 2 CBs a hell of a lot less than 2 LBs + 3CBs(nickel). Hell, we use 2LBs +2CB +1S more than 3 LB. And about 20%(swag) of the game we have 1 LB+4CB in there. That's 20% exposure if that 4th CB is a scrub. Hey, is the ball moving down the field in this thread, with the usual fits and starts? Or better: has anybody turned this into YAAT(Yet Another Allen Thread)? Nope.

You are correct: there was this clown named Charlie Joyner about 10 years ago that had perhaps the worst modeling I've ever seen in anything, and he was applying it to football. The question for me always goes back to relevance, which means scale. How many things are we counting? If it's football plays in a season, ST statistical relevance is now....approaching 0(there, make everybody feel better). Also, I've found mode is much better than mean for most things. Sounds stupid, but actually.... Background: I helped design many, many databases, then workflow schemas, and then the predictive modeling that uses them. I helped create spyware, and all that modeling for that. I do a lot with what most would call microtransactions now. I sorta created a new "language" and system for what I would call microservices. Well, I think I did. I don't know what it does, which was how I designed it. Users are 100% in charge of what it does. So, whatever you did, you fix! No calling me Full abstraction, all virtual, all encrypted, all the time. We then help out users with analytics if they want, and that's where I keep my hands in technically.

No I do not want 5 starting caliber CBs. That's not what I am saying, because of course the cost is prohibitive. Put it this way, if you are talking about #1/#2 CBs as defined by people like Gilmore(high pick, big $ FA type, shut down corner), and having 5 of those? Not what I am saying at all. In fact, what I am saying is the opposite. Do NOT put too many resources in 1(or even 2) guy, and then have 3-4 scrubs on the field with them in nickel/dime. That defeats the entire purpose, because, as I have already stated, they target the scrubs. No. What I am saying is I want "good enough" corners. In fact, I would not mind if 3rd round became "corner round". We get starter-level, but not "gonna leave and get huge $ in FA"-level, because that is counterproductive(See: Clements, Gilmore) to the entire plan. Spread the risk, spread the cash, make sure we have 5 decent guys. Approach it as a swarm, etc. This way we have a rolling group of 9 DBs(7 on roster, 2 on PS) and we think in terms of the group, not in terms of individual players.

I don't insist on impact plays not having impact. I do insist that ST have a diminished, nearly down to 0, impact on all games in a season, or just on one team's schedule. The sheer scale of total # plays / # of ST plays should tell you what is in fact obvious: there simply aren't enough ST plays to have a high propensity for impact. Again, probability, not existence. Impact ST plays exist. However, due to the rule changes and skill of the kickers and punters, their propensity for impact is approaching 0. Put another way: Does Devon Hester make an NFL squad today? No. I don't need luck. I've been doing this before it was called Business Intelligence, never mind before it was called Analytics.

Of course all statistics are "made up". Water is also wet. Stats don't just jump out of Zeus' head. No, every single time one is created, a process is followed. We can talk about the process good or bad, but please, we use statistics every day, all the time, and they are ALL made up. Your computer processor is using them right now. Is your machine working, or does it look made up? Now, on to your bad attempt at using "strawman". Hey, at least you're trying, which is why I am responding. First, YOU, not I brought up special teams. So, when I respond to your argument about special teams, by saying special teams are irrelevant, in the context and comparison of my chief argument, bad DB play, and cite specific statistical modalities as to why? Not a strawman. I didn't create a special teams argument and attribute it to you: you created one, thus, ending all hope for your strawman. I created a distinct argument that says: if we compare the # of defensive backs in coverage plays(what 60 at least?) to the # of STs plays(maybe 10), clearly STs are significantly less. And, with so many of them having such little chance of actually changing the game, 1 a game, 2?, compared with every down D Back play? They rapidly approach, if not smack right into: irrelevance. Your next post is what is called: "anecdotal". Yes, you have a story. About 2 games. We play 16. We've played 160 in 10 years. D-back play has largely been horrendous, because we refuse to approach it properly. We think 1, 1st round draft pick is the answer. It is not. Put it this way: we are never going to get out of our division if we don't get serious about d-back players as a whole. We might get out with mediocre ST. Now, if you wanted a real straw man? I could say something like "we had great special teams all through the 2000s, Brian Moorman was our best player, and we never made the playoffs, so they are irrelevant, so you are wrong". I am not saying anything like that. I am saying: with better D-back play, we have a much higher propensity of making ALL mistakes, ST and O, less relevant. Apart from that, ST is becoming less relevant by the year, due to the NFL and skill of punters and kicker, and clearly the number of end zone kicks makes them nearly irrelevant if not completely. That's why we have a practice squad. The program I am describing includes that. The whole point of the.... Wait a sec: tell me, do you want 10 DBs on the roster or not? Now I have no idea what you are arguing. (This other guy wants to know what a strawman is: I will tell him, YOU saying I want better DB play, therefore, I want 12 DBs on the roster == strawman) Why don't you take a break, figure out your argument, stop trying to create mine for me, and then come back?

Oh, so you didn't need to actually do the work of looking up and specifically analyzing the data...that would have supported your own point(if you actually had one, which as you can now see, you don't). You just jumped to the end and started making excuses for why we've had far more than 10 DBs on this roster in total this season. Hmmm. And, once again, you've attributed an argument I haven't made(we need 10 DBs on the roster) to me. As I said, I don't want 10 DBs on the roster. Actually, I'd be fine with 7. 1 backup CB 1 backup S, and 5 guys to play dime(+2 LB) or even use a backup and just use one LB. So, no, I think it's pretty clear: I don't want 10 DBs on the roster, not ever. Now: go back and explain why we have 10. Or, go back and explain why we've had 15+ on the roster year over year. That's my plan for you. I know it's good. You really don't understand: 1. We had no rush because we refused to rush....and played cover instead. Playing cover, do you know what that is? It seems like you don't, because you're describing it as though it's an error, when it was intentional. 2. Because #1, there's no way the Jets should have been able to complete long 3rd down plays, yet they did, even though we helped our weak cover guys...with even more weak cover guys. 7 in coverage...against 3-4. What the Jets did is irrelevant. We're talking about our team, purposefully trying to cover a weakness, by sends more guys at it, and that approach failing.

Yeah, the basic premises of proper statistical analysis and management, that are used everywhere, every day...total rabbit hole. True. But again, existence is not probability. These gaffes exist. They are not probable, and they become less and less probable every time the NFL changes the ST rules, again. The next biggest contributing factor towards forcing ST into irrelevance is: the "normal" offense and defense play. The better you are, the less they matter. A TD drive that starts on your 25 == one that starts on their 25. You don't get more points. Hence, a team that can move the football, because they are good at the probable, could score a 150 yard TD just as easily as a 75 yard one, it would just take longer.

Yes, and my second set of words explained, in good enough for anyone detail, how it is possible to say that the team has made the same mistake, while also acknowledging that a series of managers, each made it. There's no lumping. There is semantics, which is what you are arguing, and I am done with. Ask yourself: why do we have 10 DBs on the roster? I surely didn't say we need that many. I don't think we need that many. So, ask yourself: why are they there? Did we have 10 DBs coming out of camp on the roster? How many DBs total have been on this roster from the end of camp until today? What is the least number of DBs, total, we have had on a Bills roster for any season in the last 10? Is there a single season where we haven't had at least 15 different DBs on a Bills roster in the last 10? When you're done answering those questions, and thinking perhaps about them, get back to me. Heh, good thing you brought that up....